Thigpen v. . Balfour
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Edgcombe. The bill charged tiiat the. complainant became bound as surety for one Causey, in a,n obligation to.one Stringer, for forty-eight dollars fifty cents, payable in December, 1T96. That Stringer removed to Georgia, and Causey to the county of Pitt, in this state, about forty miles from the complainant, who, inconsequence thereof, heard nothing of the debt until 1804, when Balfour presented the obligation and demanded payment.
Read the full summary
From Edgcombe. The bill charged tiiat the. complainant became bound as surety for one Causey, in a,n obligation to.one Stringer, for forty-eight dollars fifty cents, payable in December, 1T96. That Stringer removed to Georgia, and Causey to the county of Pitt, in this state, about forty miles from the complainant, who, inconsequence thereof, heard nothing of the debt until 1804, when Balfour presented the obligation and demanded payment. That Stringer died in Georgia, and complainant understood that one Ruffin, a man of little worth either in character or property, went to that state, and in…
1Opinion of the Court
IIax.1., Judge,
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The jury have found, that at the time the defendant purchased the old bond, he had no knowledge that it liad been paid. If by that purchase he had obtained any legal advantage of the complainant, and one or the other must have suffered in consequence of Ruffin’s insolvency, equity would not interfere, but leave the loss where the law placed it. . But by that purchase he gained no legal advantage. He could not have recovered at law upon that bond, for Thigpen liad a good defence. Afterward» during the solvency of Ruffin, the jury find that the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kiser v. KiserSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- Kiser v. KiserSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- McFarland v. . McDowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1813